Slog
News & ArtsFriday, October 12, 2012
2012 "Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh"
Posted by Eli Sanders on Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone:
Biden did absolutely roll his eyes, snort, laugh derisively and throw his hands up in the air whenever Ryan trotted out his little beady-eyed BS-isms.
But he should have! He was absolutely right to be doing it. We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called "objective" news reporters as well. We should all be rolling our eyes, and scoffing and saying, "Come back when you're serious."
The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn't even a real platform, it's a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda – cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill.
4
Is Biden intellectually serious when he contradicts the State Department on Benghazi security? Certainly nothing to laugh about.
6
@4 You seem to be dangling some shiny keys at the moment...
Is it because you've been talking about how this election will be decided by the economy and it seems that Obama now has the upper hand? I mean, the job reports, the unemployment and Romney's clusterfuck of a Tax cut plan seems to be not that good for you.
Days til election: 25!
Is it because you've been talking about how this election will be decided by the economy and it seems that Obama now has the upper hand? I mean, the job reports, the unemployment and Romney's clusterfuck of a Tax cut plan seems to be not that good for you.
Days til election: 25!
7
@4, the people in Benghazi were all CIA, or ex-CIA, Chris Stevens included. The CIA produced the story that the film was to blame, perhaps because that gave them cover in moving people out of Libya, or persuaded some targets that they weren't targets, or for some other reason. It's true that the story fell apart quickly, but it's not State or the White House's job to contradict immediately what they're fed by the CIA who were on-the-ground.
As for the request for more security, how exactly are do you square that complaint with the fact that Republicans in Congress refused to fund more security for embassies around the world? If you want security, pay for it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Stevens knew the risks he was taking, and knew why he was taking those risks. Note that after his morning jobs were threatened by extremists, "after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them." That's balls.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20…
As for the request for more security, how exactly are do you square that complaint with the fact that Republicans in Congress refused to fund more security for embassies around the world? If you want security, pay for it. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Stevens knew the risks he was taking, and knew why he was taking those risks. Note that after his morning jobs were threatened by extremists, "after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them." That's balls.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20…
12
@10 Please. The whole spelling w/ 'k' thing belongs in the 80's.
But I'm with you in spirit: Republicans don't love America, it's just that simple. They'd rather see it destroyed than admit that their ideas are worthless.
@4 In the face of constant lies, and direct avoidance of anything substantive by your VP candidate, this is all you have? What makes you think that the State Department or the CIA have any responsibility to report accurately about foreign operations? It's a long-held conservative value to allow the utmost in secrecy & preventing the American populace to know anything that they do. This is just more Republican hypocrisy, which seems to be the only renewable resource they have these days.
But I'm with you in spirit: Republicans don't love America, it's just that simple. They'd rather see it destroyed than admit that their ideas are worthless.
@4 In the face of constant lies, and direct avoidance of anything substantive by your VP candidate, this is all you have? What makes you think that the State Department or the CIA have any responsibility to report accurately about foreign operations? It's a long-held conservative value to allow the utmost in secrecy & preventing the American populace to know anything that they do. This is just more Republican hypocrisy, which seems to be the only renewable resource they have these days.
14
It’s really quite amazing the contorted hoops Jay Carney, and Obama’s supporters are having to go through on this, not to mention troopers @7 and @12. The Benghazi security, although very important, is not the paramount story here. What is, is how it unfolded in such a way as to make America come to the only conclusion it can, that President Obama does not want to use the words “act of terrorism” this close to November 6th.
The Obama administration went to excruciatingly baffling lengths to blame the video days afterwards, saying that it was not a planned attack. Libya’s president immediately confirmed it was a planned attack by Al Qaeda associated terrorists.
Hillary hates this charade Barack is putting her through. I feel so sorry for Ann Rice being thrown under the bus.
Why then, wasn’t standard boilerplate text used in this case? Such as: “We’re investigating who and what led up to this attack and are committed to bringing the perpetrators to justice.”
The Obama administration went to excruciatingly baffling lengths to blame the video days afterwards, saying that it was not a planned attack. Libya’s president immediately confirmed it was a planned attack by Al Qaeda associated terrorists.
Hillary hates this charade Barack is putting her through. I feel so sorry for Ann Rice being thrown under the bus.
Why then, wasn’t standard boilerplate text used in this case? Such as: “We’re investigating who and what led up to this attack and are committed to bringing the perpetrators to justice.”
15
“We’re investigating who and what led up to this attack and are committed to bringing the perpetrators to justice.”
Hmm. Wonder if they have thought about the fact they have attacked half of North Africa, laid waste to several Middle East countries, w/help of Israeli occupier ally, and are threatening millions of innocent Iranians with incineration.
Hmm. Wonder if they have thought about the fact they have attacked half of North Africa, laid waste to several Middle East countries, w/help of Israeli occupier ally, and are threatening millions of innocent Iranians with incineration.
16
Yes, millions of innocent Iranians are indeed threatened with incineration. And, even though he's the skunk at a picnic as most Sloggers would attest, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s made truthful points in his 2012 address before the UN general assembly:
But at the same time, dear Linda, millions of Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians, Arabs, and other neighbors in the cradle of civilization are equally threatened.
If only, radical Islam jihadists revered life, as did the Soviets, we'd at least have the Mutually Assured Destruction theory working in behalf of humankind.
But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons.
There’s a great scholar of the Middle East, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it’s an inducement.
Iran’s apocalyptic leaders believe that a medieval holy man will reappear in the wake of a devastating Holy War, thereby ensuring that their brand of radical Islam will rule the earth.
That’s not just what they believe. That’s what is actually guiding their policies and their actions.
Just listen to Ayatollah Rafsanjani who said, I quote: ”The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, however it would only harm the Islamic world.”
Rafsanjani said: “It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”
But at the same time, dear Linda, millions of Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians, Arabs, and other neighbors in the cradle of civilization are equally threatened.
If only, radical Islam jihadists revered life, as did the Soviets, we'd at least have the Mutually Assured Destruction theory working in behalf of humankind.
17
@16
Have you been missing your dose of being called an idiot by strangers on the internet?
Okay, you're an idiot.
Do you feel better now?
Pakistan already has nukes.
Pakistan, do you know it?
Pakistan, where bin Laden was hiding out.
So your weird rant about Iran is meaningless.
An Islamic nation already has nukes and has had them for years.
But all you know is how to defend racists and bigots.
Have you been missing your dose of being called an idiot by strangers on the internet?
Okay, you're an idiot.
Do you feel better now?
Pakistan already has nukes.
Pakistan, do you know it?
Pakistan, where bin Laden was hiding out.
So your weird rant about Iran is meaningless.
An Islamic nation already has nukes and has had them for years.
But all you know is how to defend racists and bigots.
18
@17: For crying out loud. Are you serious?
Yes, Pakistan has nukes. An Islamic country. So what? Iran is different. I suggest you read the speeches and briefings of the candidate you are voting for and his Secretary of State. Even Obama gets it, unlike you.
Yes, Pakistan has nukes. An Islamic country. So what? Iran is different. I suggest you read the speeches and briefings of the candidate you are voting for and his Secretary of State. Even Obama gets it, unlike you.
19
@18 - If you truly think that there is a fundamental difference between Pakistan and Iran, you are even more naive than you play yourself to be. Pakistan is even more of a hotbed of fundamentalism than the Iranian people are. Stop being such a simp and open up your eyes to reality. 17 was right, you are an idiot.
20
@19: So, by implication, you're saying that Obama is an idiot? I agree, but not in that sense. Thanks for clarifying!
21
@19: Oh, don't we recall those two Iranian gay youths in a pubic hanging? The Iranian people are abused, their leadership is one of the hottest hotbed of fundamentalism on the planet.
Pakistan, on the other hand, had elected leaders like Benazir Bhutto and has the potential to do so in the future and despite everything, when was the last time you heard nuclear saber rattling from Islamabad? Not since the last posturing with India, and that's been a few years.
I suggest you study a little more history before you type.
Pakistan, on the other hand, had elected leaders like Benazir Bhutto and has the potential to do so in the future and despite everything, when was the last time you heard nuclear saber rattling from Islamabad? Not since the last posturing with India, and that's been a few years.
I suggest you study a little more history before you type.
22
@14: Libya's president said it was a terrorist attack, sure. So...the President of the United States is supposed to take the word of a foreign head of state over the word of his intelligence agency? Are you nuts?
23
@22: Well, the State Department has disclosed that there is a tape from the surveillance cameras at the consulate that there was no spontaneous protest.
The Obama administration is now finally conceding that it was NOT a spontaneous protest over a video, they're only playing CYA over the timeline of their knowledge. So what's your point?
Also, how arrogant of you to discount the statement of the Libyan president, especially when our government failed to protect our ambassador.
The Obama administration is now finally conceding that it was NOT a spontaneous protest over a video, they're only playing CYA over the timeline of their knowledge. So what's your point?
Also, how arrogant of you to discount the statement of the Libyan president, especially when our government failed to protect our ambassador.
24
@22: There is nothing wrong with our intelligence. They had it right from the beginning. They even knew it was a terrorist attack before anyone. This is U.S. intelligence after all. The administration is the one that muddied things.
25
@18
"Iran is different."
Yes. Iran is different.
For one thing, bin Laden was not hiding out in Iran.
Do I need to explain to you who bin Laden was?
Maybe you can look up some of the things that bin Laden said about Israel.
"Even Obama gets it, unlike you."
No. I think that Obama is a bit limited in what he can say because of diplomacy and the election cycle here.
At least I don't have to try to defend racists and bigots as you do.
"Iran is different."
Yes. Iran is different.
For one thing, bin Laden was not hiding out in Iran.
Do I need to explain to you who bin Laden was?
Maybe you can look up some of the things that bin Laden said about Israel.
"Even Obama gets it, unlike you."
No. I think that Obama is a bit limited in what he can say because of diplomacy and the election cycle here.
At least I don't have to try to defend racists and bigots as you do.
26
@24 - So what's your plan Raindrop, how would you have responded? Youve declared it a terrorist attack. Then what? Expose CIA operations like the House republicans did? Reduce funding for embassy security like House republicans did? Start another war? What's the plan? What's Rmoney's plan?
I'm all ears.
I'm all ears.
27
Aren't "terrorist" attacks usually targeted at "civilians"?
"Civilians" being, in this case, people who do NOT work for the government.
"Civilians" being, in this case, people who do NOT work for the government.
28
@26: I am not Raindrop. So go ask him/her.
@27: Terrorists attacks embassies (remember Kenya and Tanzania) and the military (remember the USS Cole bombing), civilians, and in addition cyber attacks.
@27: Terrorists attacks embassies (remember Kenya and Tanzania) and the military (remember the USS Cole bombing), civilians, and in addition cyber attacks.
29
@28
So you still do not know which country bin Laden was hiding in?
Hint: it was Pakistan.
And Pakistan has nukes.
And bin Laden does not like Israel or Jews.
Got that yet?
And just because you call something a "terrorist" attack does not make it a terrorist attack.
Civilian targets - yes, those are terrorist attacks.
Cyber attacks - you're an idiot.
Embassies - no, those are not terrorist attacks.
Military - you might want to look up "insurgency" or "rebellion" and such.
It's rather difficult for an attack to be "terrorism" when people have a method of avoiding it by NOT working for that government agency. Unlike, say, a terrorist attack on public transportation or a cafe or other site.
But let's be real, okay?
You're not going to look up Pakistan.
You don't know anything about bin Laden.
You're just here so that strangers on the internet can tell you how stupid you are for defending racists and bigots.
Another interesting fact is that when you think you have a point that you can "win" a discussion with then you have no problem posting direct replies.
All the other times you run and hide.
So you still do not know which country bin Laden was hiding in?
Hint: it was Pakistan.
And Pakistan has nukes.
And bin Laden does not like Israel or Jews.
Got that yet?
And just because you call something a "terrorist" attack does not make it a terrorist attack.
Civilian targets - yes, those are terrorist attacks.
Cyber attacks - you're an idiot.
Embassies - no, those are not terrorist attacks.
Military - you might want to look up "insurgency" or "rebellion" and such.
It's rather difficult for an attack to be "terrorism" when people have a method of avoiding it by NOT working for that government agency. Unlike, say, a terrorist attack on public transportation or a cafe or other site.
But let's be real, okay?
You're not going to look up Pakistan.
You don't know anything about bin Laden.
You're just here so that strangers on the internet can tell you how stupid you are for defending racists and bigots.
Another interesting fact is that when you think you have a point that you can "win" a discussion with then you have no problem posting direct replies.
All the other times you run and hide.
30
GDfR - You really are a silly, little boy. If you for one minute think that Iran is the only issue in a nuclear Middle East/South Asia, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, the saber rattlings between Islamabad and ND has settled down somewhat, but security of those (multiple) weapons in Pakistan should be a concern to you, and everyone. Iran isn't even close to getting the material refined enough, much less to put it onto a deliverable device. And here it is, Pakistan, with lots.
I have friends from Peshawar, and I'm intimately familiar with how things are in this lawless district. Do you have Pakistani friends, GDfR? My gut instinct is no, as you spout a little too much white bread to have associations from around the world (beyond the Eastside). I don't believe that there is any area in Iran that has the same issues as the Tribal Areas region.
Gay kids killed in Iran? Yes, a horrible violation of human rights. It happens in Pakistan as well, often, and doesn't get the press that Malala's shooting did. Because it's kind of the norm in the lawless area that is Pakistan outside of Islamambad, Rawalpindi, Karachi and the other major cities. And since you brought up Benazir Bhutto (may she RIP), show me a case where an Irani leader of the level of the former PM was assassinated. (still waitingggggg)
So, big boy, grow a pair and stop spouting the talking points of the RW which you love to emulate. Iran is a "problem" of the right, but the reality is that the Iranian government and society is far more stable than that in Pakistan. Show me the Taliban in Iran. Show me that ObL was hiding out in Iran (with the knowledge of the government). Show me aQ cells in Iran. Show me some evidence, rather than your continuous mindless espousing of Fox drivel.
More...
I have friends from Peshawar, and I'm intimately familiar with how things are in this lawless district. Do you have Pakistani friends, GDfR? My gut instinct is no, as you spout a little too much white bread to have associations from around the world (beyond the Eastside). I don't believe that there is any area in Iran that has the same issues as the Tribal Areas region.
Gay kids killed in Iran? Yes, a horrible violation of human rights. It happens in Pakistan as well, often, and doesn't get the press that Malala's shooting did. Because it's kind of the norm in the lawless area that is Pakistan outside of Islamambad, Rawalpindi, Karachi and the other major cities. And since you brought up Benazir Bhutto (may she RIP), show me a case where an Irani leader of the level of the former PM was assassinated. (still waitingggggg)
So, big boy, grow a pair and stop spouting the talking points of the RW which you love to emulate. Iran is a "problem" of the right, but the reality is that the Iranian government and society is far more stable than that in Pakistan. Show me the Taliban in Iran. Show me that ObL was hiding out in Iran (with the knowledge of the government). Show me aQ cells in Iran. Show me some evidence, rather than your continuous mindless espousing of Fox drivel.
31
@30: I appreciate your context about Pakistan.
@29: Yes, in that sense the media, and me, and Hillary, are not drawing that distinction of the meaning of terrorism. Terrorism has morphed into an umbrella categorization. So what is the preferred term?
@29: Yes, in that sense the media, and me, and Hillary, are not drawing that distinction of the meaning of terrorism. Terrorism has morphed into an umbrella categorization. So what is the preferred term?
32
@31
"So what is the preferred term?"
People call you an idiot all the time and yet you still don't know what that term means.
Didn't I already post about that? Yes I did.
Military - you might want to look up "insurgency" or "rebellion" and such.
But you're just here to defend racists and bigots and to be called an idiot because this is your best option for spending your Saturday.
A bomb at a Starbucks to kill unrelated civilians is usually terrorism.
An attack on an ambassador and his guards is usually an assassination.
When idiots like you use the wrong term then there are problems.
The same as when you start talking about the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons while skipping over the CURRENT threat of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
But you're just here to defend racists and bigots and to be called an idiot because this is your best option for spending your Saturday.
"So what is the preferred term?"
People call you an idiot all the time and yet you still don't know what that term means.
Didn't I already post about that? Yes I did.
Military - you might want to look up "insurgency" or "rebellion" and such.
But you're just here to defend racists and bigots and to be called an idiot because this is your best option for spending your Saturday.
A bomb at a Starbucks to kill unrelated civilians is usually terrorism.
An attack on an ambassador and his guards is usually an assassination.
When idiots like you use the wrong term then there are problems.
The same as when you start talking about the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons while skipping over the CURRENT threat of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
But you're just here to defend racists and bigots and to be called an idiot because this is your best option for spending your Saturday.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
SL Letter of the Day: Living Discomfortably by Dan Savage
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
Black Market Elimination Fail: Draft Pot Rules Call for Ban on Hash and Hash Oil by Ben Livingston
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS